The Shotgun Blog
« Near monopolists defend their near monopoly | Main | The Fraser Institute goes down market »
Thursday, April 16, 2009
PC Ontario Leadership: Christine Elliott proposes a grassroots policy process
Christine Elliott has yet to announce any policies that she would implement as premier. Instead she has announced the method in which she would find policy:
Working with the Ontario PC Party’s Policy Advisory Councils (PACs), we must continue to embark upon, and expand, the most wide ranging and inclusive policy development process since the creation of the Common Sense Revolution. PACs have been a part of our Party’s policy development process since the early 1990s and have taught us that when we listen to our Party membership about their priorities and ideas - we win.
Developing a platform that resonates with Ontarians can only be done by seeking the input and advice of grassroots members of our Party. Since the last election, our Party has revived the PAC process as a valuable tool to develop policy at a grassroots level. We need to maintain their effectiveness and inclusiveness.
I presently serve on a PAC and I can tell you that it is not a very active organization. There was some discussion about six months ago but since then I have not heard much.
It looks, however, like Christine Elliott wishes to energise the PACs. She is proposing PAC meetings with friendly stakeholders and regional town halls. Furthermore she is proposing that ridings put forth policy resolutions that would be discussed in regional policy meetings. The platform will then be created from a selection of these policies. (It is a little vague on how that selection would be made)
I like grassroots policy processes. It makes for not only a stronger party but also for better policy. That being said, I would rather that Christine Elliott announce policies of her own choosing. I have too often seen grassroots consultations turn into theatrical jokes. The Winnipeg Conservative Party convention is a good example. Resolutions coming from that convention were completely ignored. Another good example is the PC Ontario convention last February, the ‘policy straw polls’ were so badly worded that they actually made me giggle.
It takes a leader who truly believes in a grassroots process to make it meaningful. Christine Elliott may be such a leader. But when it comes to this sort of process, I feel like Charlie Brown having the ball moved as I try to kick it.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on April 16, 2009 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
Comments
Let's cut to the chase: which candidate has the most radical feminist and militant gay policies?
We all agree here that freedom is best safeguarded by imposing a radical feminist and militant gay agenda on a populace that doesn't want it, by force of an unelected court if necessary, so which candidate should we be backing? Is Enza Supermodel running in this one?
All of this talk about policy makes my head hurt, just tell me which candidate hardline feminist Mike Brock and gay agenda militant Terrence Watson are supporting and I'm there, they know a freedom candidate when they see one.
Posted by: No Commies | 2009-04-16 10:52:37 AM
Christine Elliott is the most centrist. She is the most John Tory or "Liberal Lite" like. Therefore, she will never get my vote!
Posted by: Brian | 2009-04-16 12:58:06 PM
Smoke and mirrors, Hugh. Politicians always avoid member decided policies when they're politically inconvenient. The Tories are the worst for this.
Drop the Tory politics, they're never going to get you anywhere. Support freedom where ever it takes you.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-04-16 2:17:17 PM
Other good examples of policy processes ignored: The Montreal Conservative Party convention, the pre-2003 election PC Party policy process...
Grassroots policy processes are good, but it's very easy for a leader to ignore them or to pick and choose in favour of policies that they most believe in. That's why it's important for leadership candidates to let members know their policy positions, even if they are willing to submit to the policy process (a claim I would doubt.)
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-16 9:16:03 PM
No Commies: You are too friendly. It's nice I guess, but we all just met. I think you should tone it down a smidge.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-16 9:17:00 PM
Terrence and Mike are big boys with senses of humour, they've both taken countless shots at the male hetero community and it's perfectly reasonable that we occasionally respond in kind. Maybe poking a bit of gentle fun will jar them into re-evaluating why they are both so obsessed with radical feminism and militant gay advocacy.
Posted by: No Commies | 2009-04-16 9:57:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.